TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

All runs performed in Ludicrous mode at Max Battery setting. Battery at 90% for the first run. Due to evening traffic considerations, these runs were all performed in the same direction and were slightly downhill. Uphill runs will be performed tomorrow. Racelogic performance box with external antenna used to record the times. Sorry about the poor contrast in the vids.

... sigh of relief ... now this is more like it. Subtracting, the 60 - 100 times in the three runs are 4.4, 4.6, and 4.2, so a 4.4 average. If you look at Car and Driver's Sep 13 comparison between the Audi RS7, BMW M6 Gran Coupe, and Mercedes CLS63 AMG S-model (a good proxy for 'the enemy') their 60 - 100 times are 4.4, 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, so it's a tie. Their lb/hp, dividing weight by HP from the article, are 7.95, 7.96, and 7.64, a 7.85 average. Car and Driver's weight for a P85D from the June 15 issue (hoping they measure weights in their articles consistently) is 5010 lbs. Dividing 5010 / 7.85, the P90D's implied HP, executing a 60 - 100 passing maneuver, is 638. Obviously not exactly the numbers Tesla's motors are producing, since driveline losses are different, etc. But 638 is the P90D HP on a comparable basis when passing. Hopefully more is to come through software.

Here is an uphill run and a downhill run on the exact same stretch of road. Still having some trouble with contrast on the video. My apologies. The beep toward the end of each video is the alarm on my Racelogic Performance Box letting me know I was going over 100 mph.

... sigh of relief ... now this is more like it. Subtracting, the 60 - 100 times in the three runs are 4.4, 4.6, and 4.2, so a 4.4 average. If you look at Car and Driver's Sep 13 comparison between the Audi RS7, BMW M6 Gran Coupe, and Mercedes CLS63 AMG S-model (a good proxy for 'the enemy') their 60 - 100 times are 4.4, 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, so it's a tie. Their lb/hp, dividing weight by HP from the article, are 7.95, 7.96, and 7.64, a 7.85 average. Car and Driver's weight for a P85D from the June 15 issue (hoping they measure weights in their articles consistently) is 5010 lbs. Dividing 5010 / 7.85, the P90D's implied HP, executing a 60 - 100 passing maneuver, is 638. Obviously not exactly the numbers Tesla's motors are producing, since driveline losses are different, etc. But 638 is the P90D HP on a comparable basis when passing. Hopefully more is to come through software.

Click to expand...

:redface: I take it back. 5.4 uphill vs. 4.4 average the other way, so net 4.9. Not so good against 'the enemy' after all.

In the midst of the second of the two 0-100 mph runs today, which were separated by the amount of time necessary to complete a U-turn, the display beneath the "Ludicrous" setting went from "Ready" to "Preparing," and the car precipitously felt discernibly less robust. This occurred on the uphill run at about 50 mph. 50 mph to 100 mph seemed to take forever.

This had been the 4th run of the morning, I'd performed two back-to-back quarter mile times (one of the two not posted due to horrible glare), spent a few moments adjusting my improvised VBox/iPhone data recording system, and then performed the back-to-back 0-100 mph runs. I believe the uphill run would have been swifter had full power been sustained for the entirety of the segment. I'll duplicate the run uphill tomorrow and report back.

Claiming 2.7-2.8 on a downhill is about as useful as claiming 1g corning, with banking. If you cycle competitively, and work on your 1,000-1,500 watt sprints, do you notice a big difference in which way you travel up/down a 2% grade?

I don't know if there's a convention for how much tail winds and down grades help, but I'm afraid these results currently lack an important control.

Claiming 2.7-2.8 on a downhill is about as useful as claiming 1g corning, with banking. If you cycle competitively, and work on your 1,000-1,500 watt sprints, do you notice a big difference in which way you travel up/down a 2% grade?

I don't know if there's a convention for how much tail winds and down grades help, but I'm afraid these results currently lack an important control.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that running the exact same segment of road in the opposite direction represents the control in this study. You will note that it was 3.0 seconds.

I'm pretty sure that running the exact same segment of road in the opposite direction represents the control in this study. You will note that it was 3.0 seconds.

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.

Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.

Click to expand...

That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.

That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

And this folks is how you can state a criticism of somebody's statement without being mean, offensive, or getting thrown to Snippiness.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

And again keeping along that same approach, and hoping to offend no one as I am grateful to Burt for his efforts too.

The first post of the thread, he is going downhill and his 0-100 results are:

7.3 seconds
7.4 seconds7.0 seconds

The 7 flat was cause for optimism that the car was capable of a 10.9 second quarter mile.

He then made two more runs. and posted YouTube vids for those. One uphill at 8.4 seconds, the other downhill at 7.3 seconds.

His latest run, and on a flat road, also seen on YouTube, is 0-60 at 2.9 seconds, and a 0-100 time of 7.5 seconds.

Bear in mind, that in order to have any chance of dropping into the 10s, say 10.9, on a drag strip, in most any street legal vehicle, at least any street legal passenger vehicle that I can think of, save possibly for some of these sport bikes, 100mph will need to be reached in 7 seconds flat or less, .....unless the car has some serious, and I mean serious, top end.

A 10.9xx second quarter mile time slip, will typically show about 99-100mph at 6.9xx -7.0xx seconds, and at the 1/8 mile or 660ft point. The halfway point. This is the speed measured on the drag strip, and this speed will be measured in a zone which starts 66 feet before 1/8 mile is reached. Or, it will show a time slightly over 7 seconds, say 7.1xx-7.2xx seconds, but at a higher speed, say 101-102, 103 mph. But a 10.9xx second time slip typically does not show a speed of 100mph flat, which doesn't come until 7.5 seconds into the run. That would only leave 3.4 seconds to complete the distance of 1/4 mile.

Knowing that, I don't see any possible way, if Burt's run was made on a flat surface, for the P90D Ludicrous to be a 10.9 second car in it's current state. I hope to offend no one with this comment, and it is only the opinion of a Tesla owner with a drag racing background in ICE vehicles.

Bottom line, with the data that we have, I don't think we're looking at a 10 second car just yet. But rather I think that we are looking at an 11.3xx-11.4xx car, and at about 117-118mph, which is what we have actually seen to this point.

The supposed improved highway passing power over the preceding P85D, I don't know just yet and would like to see the 60-130mph Vbox results for the P85D compared agains the same for the P90D Ludicrous.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.